Exactly. Speed x distance = cost. This is _exactly_ why IXPs get set up. To avoid backhauling bandwidth from Dallas, or wherever. Loss, latency, out-of-order delivery, and jitter. All lower when you source your bandwidth closer.
-Bill
> On Oct 15, 2023, at 06:12, Tim Burke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It’s better for customer experience to keep it local instead of adding 200
> miles to the route. All of the competition hauls all of their traffic up to
> Dallas, so we easily have a nice 8-10ms latency advantage by keeping transit
> and peering as close to the customer as possible.
>
> Plus, you can’t forget to mention another ~$10k MRC per pair in DF costs to
> get up to Dallas, not including colo, that we can spend on more transit or
> better gear!
>
>> On Oct 14, 2023, at 23:03, Ryan Hamel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Why not place the routers in Dallas, aggregate the transit, IXP, and PNI's
>> there, and backhaul it over redundant dark fiber with DWDM waves or 400G
>> OpenZR?
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> From: NANOG <[email protected]> on behalf of Tim
>> Burke <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 8:45 PM
>> To: Dave Taht <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this
>> time! <[email protected]>; libreqos
>> <[email protected]>; NANOG <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: transit and peering costs projections Caution: This is an
>> external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or
>> opening attachments.
>>
>>
>> I would say that a 1Gbit IP transit in a carrier neutral DC can be had for a
>> good bit less than $900 on the wholesale market.
>>
>> Sadly, IXP’s are seemingly turning into a pay to play game, with rates
>> almost costing as much as transit in many cases after you factor in loop
>> costs.
>>
>> For example, in the Houston market (one of the largest and fastest growing
>> regions in the US!), we do not have a major IX, so to get up to Dallas it’s
>> several thousand for a 100g wave, plus several thousand for a 100g port on
>> one of those major IXes. Or, a better option, we can get a 100g flat
>> internet transit for just a little bit more.
>>
>> Fortunately, for us as an eyeball network, there are a good number of major
>> content networks that are allowing for private peering in markets like
>> Houston for just the cost of a cross connect and a QSFP if you’re in the
>> right DC, with Google and some others being the outliers.
>>
>> So for now, we'll keep paying for transit to get to the others (since it’s
>> about as much as transporting IXP from Dallas), and hoping someone at Google
>> finally sees Houston as more than a third rate city hanging off of Dallas.
>> Or… someone finally brings a worthwhile IX to Houston that gets us more than
>> peering to Kansas City. Yeah, I think the former is more likely. 😊
>>
>> See y’all in San Diego this week,
>> Tim
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2023, at 18:04, Dave Taht <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > This set of trendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data
>> > stops in 2015. Does anyone have more recent data?
>> >
>> > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrpeering.net%2Fwhite-papers%2FInternet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php&data=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nQeWrGi%2BblMmtiG9u7SdF3JOi1h9Fni7xXo%2FusZRopA%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>> > I believe a gbit circuit that an ISP can resell still runs at about
>> > $900 - $1.4k (?) in the usa? How about elsewhere?
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I am under the impression that many IXPs remain very successful,
>> > states without them suffer, and I also find the concept of doing micro
>> > IXPs at the city level, appealing, and now achievable with cheap gear.
>> > Finer grained cross connects between telco and ISP and IXP would lower
>> > latencies across town quite hugely...
>> >
>> > PS I hear ARIN is planning on dropping the price for, and bundling 3
>> > BGP AS numbers at a time, as of the end of this year, also.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Oct 30:
>> > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnetdevconf.info%2F0x17%2Fnews%2Fthe-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html&data=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ROLgtoeiBgfAG40UZqS8Zd8vMK%2B0HQB7RV%2FhQRvIcFM%3D&reserved=0
>> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
